List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

I was recently engaged in a discussion on this board and was challenging a theist to present to me empirical evidence that his religion was true. He struck back by accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.

To be fair, I have compiled a list of things that would: a)Convert me Immediately b)Would compell me to study more about that religion c) Would not be potent evidence for the veracity of that religion and d) Would repulse me from that religion.

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

2. Scientific knowledge in Holy Books that could not possibly have been known by the writers.

A mention of evolution, atomic theory, or heliocentric theory would be impressive and compelling. What I really mean here is something like Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity; which are both so abstract and anti-intuitive that the odds of gessing at them correctly are staggering.

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

4. A direct manifestation of the divine.

Have god simply talk to me in a state where I know it could not be a hallucination, preferably in the presence of as many reliable witnesses as possible.

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book.

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

2. A religion without internal disputes or factions.

Finding a religion where everybody agreed pretty consistently about it would be compelling.

3. A religion whose followers have never taken part in attrocities
4. If they did commit attrocities, then they should have a nearly flawless record in Jihads or Holy Wars.

III. Completely uncompelling
1. Speaking in tongues or pseudo-miracles.

Miracles should be genuine, verifiable, and a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.

2. Conversion stories.
Any conversion stories are not compelling.

3. Subjective experiences.

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS:
"I hate to break it to you but everything that exists in the human world is based on subjective experience, as we are subjects having experiences."

Good point. What I mean by subjective experience here is a stricter version than the formal definition. What I had in mind was the inability of other reliable observers to be subject to that experience, i.e being confined to a single or handful of individuals. That should be clarified.

"Empirical proof is almost impossible to find for either the non-existence or the existence of a diety. Empiricsm is based only on experience. Anyone can claim something exists beyond it which renders anything empirical proof useless. If someone claims everything is an illusion then that would mean that any empirical evidence presented could be specious as well. Finally even if you did witness miracles and supernatural or felt overwhelmed in any divine way, think about this ; what are the odds that the universe have given you divine insight as opposed to everyone else. Better yet why is an exception only made for you."

I am deducing here that you think my propositions of experiencing direct divine manifestations as evidence is unreasonable because only a collective group of humans in all of history are capable of being subjected to divine insights. If this is the case, then I will remain an atheist unless I am one of those lucky individuals. My current beliefs have led me to conclude that nobody has ever been overwhelmed by an experience that has been a legitimately divine inspiration, as all cited cases are completely sketchy and easily contrived. Furthermore; there is no reason why a deity powerful enough to create the universe should be able to prove himself to EVERYBODY at the same time (especially prophecies

If everything is a product of what came before, than something must necessarily have started it all. Time progresses in a linear fashion, therefore something must have been outside of time in order to jump start it. IF the universe was created by a big bang, what created the big bang. What created the creator of the big bang?

What was the first thing that happened? What caused that to happen?

Spinoza?

Why must someone convince you - I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilvin

I was recently engaged in a discussion on this board and was challenging a theist to present to me empirical evidence that his religion was true. He struck back by accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.

To be fair, I have compiled a list of things that would: a)Convert me Immediately b)Would compell me to study more about that religion c) Would not be potent evidence for the veracity of that religion and d) Would repulse me from that religion.

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

2. Scientific knowledge in Holy Books that could not possibly have been known by the writers.

A mention of evolution, atomic theory, or heliocentric theory would be impressive and compelling. What I really mean here is something like Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity; which are both so abstract and anti-intuitive that the odds of gessing at them correctly are staggering.

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

4. A direct manifestation of the divine.

Have god simply talk to me in a state where I know it could not be a hallucination, preferably in the presence of as many reliable witnesses as possible.

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book.

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

2. A religion without internal disputes or factions.

Finding a religion where everybody agreed pretty consistently about it would be compelling.

3. A religion whose followers have never taken part in attrocities
4. If they did commit attrocities, then they should have a nearly flawless record in Jihads or Holy Wars.

III. Completely uncompelling
1. Speaking in tongues or pseudo-miracles.

Miracles should be genuine, verifiable, and a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.

2. Conversion stories.
Any conversion stories are not compelling.

3. Subjective experiences.

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

---

I did not state categorically that you would refuse anything I said offhand. I am more than willing to continue discussion, but if you think I said or meant that then I must correct you, I don't think that you would necessarily do that at all.

I.
1. Don't have any of these, closest thing would be the I Ching, the book of changes. I didn't study this for divination, simply something to chew over.

2. Granted I know very little about Quantum Mechanics, but what I've garnered from studies in Buddhism are intruigingly related to Quantum Physics. Basically, the different ways they've said that "there is no deep reality," or found that all phenomena are illusory in nature.

Psychology went through a great deal in modern times to be considered a science, yet practically it's not considered one by most people, I have discovered. But if you consider pscyhology a science, then there's great scientific knowledge in both Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism is called sometimes the science of self-realization, or the science of God-realization.

The process I understand to be true religion is God-realization, in stages. The ultimate goal is God-consciousness, which doesn't mean losing one's identity, or merging into an impersonal force; but rather it is always working for the satisfaction of the Whole. God is the root of existence, and just as watering the root of a tree is the only way to sustain the tree, so too when we work steadily to satisfy the root of existence, it is spread out and we are actually seving the parts as well.

The religion I follow follows a different method of knowledge, a descending process, where knowledge is passed from teacher to disciple. I'll mention more of that later.

I realize this may not be convincing to you as you seem to have meant a person somehow getting a guidebook for creating an electric motor more than 2000 years ago or something like this. Again, I've never heard of anything like this, nor actually sought for it.

3. Don't know of these. I believe the power of prayer is greater than the power of thought, but it isn't designed to let us be demigods. God is present in His teachings, in His devotees, also in the heart of every living entity, no matter what his position. We have the power to heal but not to change the laws of nature.

4. I don't think this will ever happen.

II.
1. Bhagavad-Gita is called the "Song of the Lord." It's considered by devotees to be the actual words of God. It's a 700 verse, 18 chapter scripture, in which Krishna explains the roles of living entities, time, karma, the soul (atma), the living entities (jivas), and the supreme controller (isvara). It explains the modes of material nature, the Lord who is completely transcendental to material nature, and the living entities which are transcendental originally but have forgotten their spiritual identity.

2. Don't have one because I can't speak for others.

3. Similar to #2, don't know all the individuals in every religion.

III.
1. Don't know about this either.

2. Won't give you any.

3. Interesting question. The only way you can arrive at truth is by a long process. It takes a while to discover true ideas, to come to something you can be certain is true. We have come a long way from the beginning, with many twists and turns, and the question is if we remember all the places we made turns, ran into questions.

Quote:

---

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

---

I hate to break it to you but everything that exists in the human world is based on subjective experience, as we are subjects having experiences. Every person has within them the potentially for complete objectivity, complete understanding. This comes from understanding oneself, others, one's nature, the nature of the world. I can tell you completely objectively that the only thing which is important is the search for God. George Harrison said, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot wait." Why? Because the individual is less important than the whole. Or at least it's smaller. The only thing that is important is searching for truth, peace, transcendence, beauty, love, happiness; whatever you will call it, and then living, for whatever you wish to believe in. I believe truth is understanding the will of God, which is harmony, peace, love and evolution. First we have to deprogram ourselves of conceptions of God. Anyway the main thing I am driving at is the differences between individual consciousness and super or divine consciousness. Once the individual begins to awaken to the existence of the rest of the consciousness in which they exist; they realize this is the most important thing. You say it's subjective, or unintelligible, but why, exactly? It is the most truthful quest of philosophy: going to the beginning, to find out what we are, with the first conclusion being we are a part of a greater whole. It's actually the first objective fact there is.

I don't have a monopoly on God and I don't wish to do anything but discuss with you. I am not close minded to atheism, I have simply progressed beyond that view. I think we all have different views of God because we view Him through our own filters. However I've read some of the greatest or most revered contributors to human thought; and quite often they have some true or partly true ideas!

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

Empirical proof is almost impossible to find for either the non-existence or the existence of a diety. Empiricsm is based only on experience. Anyone can claim something exists beyond it which renders anything empirical proof useless. If someone claims everything is an illusion then that would mean that any empirical evidence presented could be specious as well. Finally even if you did witness miracles and supernatural or felt overwhelmed in any divine way, think about this ; what are the odds that the universe have given you divine insight as opposed to everyone else. Better yet why is an exception only made for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.

---

Ah, but evangelicals do give a ****, and rightly so. From their perspective they are the ones carrying the flotation device that we all need. Christians with consciences are continually concerned about how to convince the non-believer. This is not to say they are responsible for the non-believer's decisions. Any religion or irreligion worth a **** teaches its practitioners to give a ****. Consider the Good Samaritan. This is where free market zealotry and objectivism fall flat.

Good points made by all. I will post my response to objections by editing my first post if you would like to see if I acknowledged your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilvin

.... by editing my first post ....

---

Hopefully Nikolai quoted your OP in full because by editing it it now makes it really confusing as to who you're addressing and what your original statements were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

---

its an endless repetition....
http://www.w3.org/Talks/1999/0830-tu...-mjd/babel.jpg
"wont you sign up your name..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilvin

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

---

What are your thoughts about Ezekiel 37, and the re-formation of the nation of Israel?

The entire chapter talks about the prophecy, and while a couple parts of it are still in the process of being fulfilled, the majority of it has come to pass within the last 60 years.

A small quote:
"Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land."

"I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling"

Read that last part. This prophecy and similar ones in the Old Testament are the sole reason that most Jewish people return to Israel. This self-fulfilment is prevalent through other religions, but this is the most prominent example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To Logos, its pretty clear that I add objections to THE END of my post in it's own subsection which is clearly distinguished from the original content. Look at the post before making accusations of flopping around my content to falsely make it appear as if it was in there all along.

''accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.''


Don't know why, but this has always been the pattern regardless of the religion involved. In fact, I have had this same difficulty with a pundit on this forum as well for the same reason.

Why religious pundits fail to demonstrate some measure of humility and admit that they cannot prove their contentions is beyond all reason. In fact religions like the various Christian denominations and Islam all require humility among its adherents above everything else. But ultimately, that problem is between them and their god. Or so I suppose.

Jilvin.


There is a good book you can read online by the title "The Bible, The Quran and the Science". "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE".


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...QS/default.htm


It was written by a doctor called Maurice Bucaille. He addresses your questions in both the Bible and the Quran. You can satisfy your curiousity.


PS: In case someone would wonder where my religious affliation would be, I am a muslim.

These are pretty much the same things that would convince me, as well.

Jilvn, you're not far from my own position and I'm having the identical discussion on a christian board at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

If everything is a product of what came before, than something must necessarily have started it all.

---

This is incorrect.

There is no need for anything "before" the big bang*

It's a difficult concept to work with and is counter-intuitive. But then again, so is most of quantum physics - the universe doesn't work like we expect it to. This been greatly beneficial to religion in the past, but the gaps are shrinking.

*I'm not saying that either the big bang theory or my comments on time are incorrect, but it's wrong to say that something must have been before the start of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

---

Nah, it's all in good fun most of the time.

Very well-put, eminently sensible list. I agree with you entirely, and in fact several of those things are what helped persuade me to become a Christian.

However it cannot be denied that at least in part, Christianity is a faith-based religion. Not necessarily empirical -- just faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen. How would you address that? Your list only demands things of God but being a Christian is reciprocal.

You have to have faith: faith that He exists, faith that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again after three days. You have to have a relationship with Him; being a Christian is absolutely not just believing in a deity and that's the end of it. It is neither so dumb nor so easy to be a Christian as you seem to imply it is.

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push. No one can answer that - the big bang doesn't explain what came before it, or why it happened when it happened. Time itself doesn't just start.

There is no answer as to where matter came from - which is unexplainable. Good luck - there is no theory to give anything substantial. That isn't proof in itself of a God, I will admit, but it is enough to cast doubt that science has all the answers, which even scientists agree.

The concept of a Spinoza type God has nothing to do with organized religion, but it is just as practical as any hypothesis given by the scientific community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push.

---

Actually no, since Big Bang created matter, without matter (pre-Big Bang), no space, without space, no time. Therefore you cannot think about the Big Bang happening in some kind of temporal cause-effect way, there is in fact no "before" the Big Bang. Human is used to think everything in relation to time, unfortunately, time is is what is generally conceived, it is not some kind of universal measure. Merely a perspective.

Quote:

---

There is no answer as to where matter came from - which is unexplainable.

---

Yes, yes, energy. But actually it is all pointless arguing over these, as none of us (I might be mistaken) has the necesary knowledge for such question. Physics are thrown everywhere in such discussions, by both sides of the argument, but none of them really understand it, and even though they would understand a simple part of it, the simple fact that they miss the big picture is most likely to make it irrelevant.

Besides using what seems like logic or common sense is also useless when this logic is of human size, and when what is discussed about is chemical reactions, powers, sizes, spaces that escape mere human intellection and imagination and require this scientifical abstraction.

So when talking about such notions of physics, we are basically all talking through our hats. And then it all comes down to religious discussions on internet forums, something that, JBI, is far, far worse than any Wikipedia has or will ever be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

Very well-put, eminently sensible list. I agree with you entirely, and in fact several of those things are what helped persuade me to become a Christian.

However it cannot be denied that at least in part, Christianity is a faith-based religion. Not necessarily empirical -- just faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen. How would you address that? Your list only demands things of God but being a Christian is reciprocal.

You have to have faith: faith that He exists, faith that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again after three days. You have to have a relationship with Him; being a Christian is absolutely not just believing in a deity and that's the end of it. It is neither so dumb nor so easy to be a Christian as you seem to imply it is.

---

Is it now? Is it easier than being an atheist, knowing when you die you end up in oblivion, and knowing that everyone else who died is already in oblivion? OR knowing that you are shunned from most society (especially the united states, and other extremist religious countries). There's not just that though - Atheism doesn't have a church charity basket to turn to in trouble - who is there to give it? Atheism doesn't have any of the luxuries of religion - that's why people believe.

It may not be easy to believe in Christ, but I doubt it is easier than the alternative, especially if you live in a religious country.

That being said - if it was Sweden, I think most people simply just wouldn't care - a better lifestyle - and perhaps why such countries seem so idyllic in portrayal.

JBI

My comments will tackle two points

First, I believe because Allah deserves to be worshipped, by his creations, not because it is easier than atheism. Imagine if you have a son, that refuses to admit that you are his father. And you as a father love Him and pray for Him and want him, but he does not want to admit, because you might punish him for a mistake he has done. But if he comes closer and knows you, he will know, that it was out of love and paternal wisdom that you knew his own good. Similarly, Allah, who is not our father, but even nearer, He is our creator, that made us with His Hands, and knows what is best for us, who could we search for except Him?

THe second point concerning the Big Bang. I don't know if a verse in the Quran would explain this phenomenon. Allah says in His Final Holy Scripture the Quran:

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe?

In other words, the skies and earth were one unit and to be separated something similar to the Big Bang was ordered by Allah, who then made water the source of life to every living thing.

I really hope this explains anything at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Is it now? Is it easier than being an atheist, knowing when you die you end up in oblivion, and knowing that everyone else who died is already in oblivion? OR knowing that you are shunned from most society (especially the united states, and other extremist religious countries). There's not just that though - Atheism doesn't have a church charity basket to turn to in trouble - who is there to give it? Atheism doesn't have any of the luxuries of religion - that's why people believe.

It may not be easy to believe in Christ, but I doubt it is easier than the alternative, especially if you live in a religious country.

That being said - if it was Sweden, I think most people simply just wouldn't care - a better lifestyle - and perhaps why such countries seem so idyllic in portrayal.

---

When you die you end up in oblivion...No, you're absolutely right, that is harder than believing you will go to Heaven. But why do you believe that you'll end up in oblivion? This is probably the most difficult aspect of your post for me to understand. All of life -- and you want to just die and have an end of it? No hope? No want to be able to understand everything? Life is short and there is so much to learn and do; don't you feel the same? I read a sermon once by somebody whose name I forgot, and he said that Heaven won't just be harps and wings, but ever so much more. Those who love knowledge will have the Creator of all things to learn from. Those who love music will have celestial choirs to listen to -- Kepler's musical dreams of old! Those who love art will have colors that don't even exist in our spectrum -- how then can one opt for "oblivion" when there is so much more to know?

Shunned from society...Christians are shunned too. That said, what do you want me to say? It is, in the end, your choice, whether atheist or Christian or theist or deist or whatever you like, and therefore up to you to stand up to opposition. There's opposition for anything and everything out of the norm, and Christians have long since relinquished the right to guide that norm. Too, what is the point of believing something that everyone else believes? Taking into consideration the wide variety of humanity there's something a bit unusual and indeed a bit eerie in the idea of everyone believing the same thing.

Church charity basket…Not all churches are these benevolent, happy-making places you portray. Only the big churches can afford to have generous “church charity baskets.” The small unknowns, like my church, don’t even have a building, much less money to hand out like largesse. Furthermore, Christians – and I speak as one of them – are humans, not automatons. We have pride too. Most Christian families I know would have to be in straits worse than dire before they asked for money. The Bible says that the man of the house is supposed to provide for his family, and as much as possible, Christians try to keep to that.

Where atheists are supposed to get “church charity baskets” I don’t know. The government soon enough will be offering to all, and taking on the load of “come to me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden.”

A question: what are the “luxuries of religion?”

Um, the Big Bang theory isn't a theory about how the universe began, but a theory of the current development of the universe. What scientists mean when they tell laypersons that the Big Bang was "the beginning of time" really means that the conditions that occured before the rapid expansion of the universe would be inconsequential and undetectable.

Quote:

---

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push. No one can answer that - the big bang doesn't explain what came before it, or why it happened when it happened. Time itself doesn't just start.

---

Scientifically, and I am NOT a scientist, so this is the best way I can put it, but the Big Bang would actually prove the existance of a God, or a sentient being. As far as we can tell, the Big Bang occurred because a single atom was condensed so densely that the energy within it was too great to contain. However, because it was only a single atom, there were no other influences, no other reasons for it to ... well... BANG. Leading us to beleive it had to make the choice to do so. Or something like that... there was a lot more string and particle theory in the actual discussion... Ummm... aha.

Time is a human invention and only relative to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilvin

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

---

I've seen that, and believe me; it was shocking. And scienctificly unexplainable also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jilvin

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book.

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

---

What's wrong with Bible?

The entire premise of this thread is pointless: one does not believe in God because God has been sufficiently "proven" enough to overcome human doubt. If you read the Bible, Paul makes it clear in the NT that the desire to know God comes from God - and that the clarity of vision necessary to believe comes from God - but that clarity comes only when the individual truly desires to know God - not from some "show me" attitude. Honestly, if one is predisposed to disbelieve in God due to a lack of "empirical" evidence, providing said evidence wouldn't work. Even if God did actually decide to speak audibly to a nonbeliever, the odds are pretty good that the nonbeliever would concoct some alternative explanation (I was hallucinating, a dream, medication malfunctioned, etc). Seriously, both nonbelievers and believers choose what they believe, based upon "evidence" that they believe proves their case - but it only proves their case in that they have already decided what they wish to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

the desire to know God comes from God - and that the clarity of vision necessary to believe comes from God - but that clarity comes only when the individual truly desires to know God -

---

So, the desire/drive to know x comes from x. similar to saying that the drive for food comes from food-- which it doesnt, it comes from hunger (just as the desire to know god comes from some people's hunger for meaning and purpose, not god). Now you could say that the desire for everything is rooted in god, but to say that everything is one-thing is basically saying nothing--you can't do anything with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Seriously, both nonbelievers and believers choose what they believe, based upon "evidence" that they believe proves their case - but it only proves their case in that they have already decided what they wish to believe

---

truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

So, the desire/drive to know x comes from x. similar to saying that the drive for food comes from food-- which it doesnt, it comes from hunger (just as the desire to know god comes from some people's hunger for meaning and purpose, not god). Now you could say that the desire for everything is rooted in god, but to say that everything is one-thing is basically saying nothing--you can't do anything with it

---

Not quite the same. The presence of hunger does not prove the existence of food, but it does suggest that we were designed to be fueled in a certain way by certain substances. In the same way, the "hunger" for meaning and purpose comes from God in that God designed us to be in relationship with Him; that we can override that desire (via a stubborn insistence that God "prove" Himself to us before we'll believe) or misinterpret it (largely the explanation for our numerous addictive and self-destructive behaviors) doesn't diminish the fact that we were made to be in relationship with Him. He created us with that desire - and our attempt to fulfill that desire with drink, drugs, sex, food, etc, attests to our need to fill an emptiness in our hearts that only God can fill.

In other words, the desire for transcendance that we feel - whether it is transcendance through artistic expression, sex, mind-altering drugs, or whatever - is due to our desire for God (which is partly why GK Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase) that "every man knocking on the door of a brothel is really seeking God" (and ancient temples to Aphrodite bear this idea out). So - those who demand "proof" really don't want to know God at all - just as the man who demands proof that a woman loves him before he'll inter into relationship with her demands the impossible because such an attitude already says "I'm only interested in you so far as you confirm something to me that I feel I must have" - now how well would that work? Any woman subjected to that attitude would fail the man's "test" because she would refuse to open herself up to such a demand. Both partners undertake the equal risk of opening up and learning about each other, assuming that the other is just as genuinely interested as we are. God is no different. Since the Bible tells us that God IS love, I think the comparison valid.

God exists beyond our 4 dimensions - He is not subject to empirical proof any more than love is - they can only be experienced - and largely internally so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

truth

---

Right - but non-believers will not go along with this; they will insist they have an empirical basis for their doubt - but that's not really true; just because God won't reveal Himself in a way that subjects Himself to our tools of measurement doesn't mean He doesn't exist - any more than we could definitively say that the man who doesn't send flowers or cards to his wife doesn't really love her. He may deeply love her, but he may choose to express that love in less "objectively" measurable ways. (Bad analogy, but I'm in a hurry.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeccaT

Scientifically, and I am NOT a scientist, so this is the best way I can put it, but the Big Bang would actually prove the existance of a God, or a sentient being.

---

Nope. Nothing of the sort. Not only does it prove nothing, it suggests nothing either. "Big Bang" is a two word phrase to descibe an enormous number of likely theories as to what happened. 99.999999999% of it deals with the universe a nanosecond after its creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeccaT

As far as we can tell, the Big Bang occurred because a single atom was condensed so densely that the energy within it was too great to contain. However, because it was only a single atom, there were no other influences, no other reasons for it to ... well... BANG. Leading us to beleive it had to make the choice to do so. Or something like that... there was a lot more string and particle theory in the actual discussion... Ummm... aha.

---

Not even close. Here's a good start to what "Big Bang" actually does mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeccaT

Time is a human invention and only relative to us.

---

Time, as in hours, days, minutes and years is certainly human construct, but the fact that the universe is expanding means that time as a concept does actually exist. The space a galaxy occupies now is different to the space it occupied 10,000 earth years ago, and while nobody cares what time it was, it has definitely moved and not instantaneously, so time does pass, whether you're wearing a watch or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Not quite the same. The presence of hunger does not prove the existence of food, but it does suggest that we were designed to be fueled in a certain way by certain substances. In the same way, the "hunger" for meaning and purpose comes from God in that God designed us to be in relationship with Him; that we can override that desire (via a stubborn insistence that God "prove" Himself to us before we'll believe) or misinterpret it (largely the explanation for our numerous addictive and self-destructive behaviors) doesn't diminish the fact that we were made to be in relationship with Him. He created us with that desire - and our attempt to fulfill that desire with drink, drugs, sex, food, etc, attests to our need to fill an emptiness in our hearts that only God can fill.

In other words, the desire for transcendance that we feel - whether it is transcendance through artistic expression, sex, mind-altering drugs, or whatever - is due to our desire for God (which is partly why GK Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase) that "every man knocking on the door of a brothel is really seeking God" (and ancient temples to Aphrodite bear this idea out). So - those who demand "proof" really don't want to know God at all - just as the man who demands proof that a woman loves him before he'll inter into relationship with her demands the impossible because such an attitude already says "I'm only interested in you so far as you confirm something to me that I feel I must have" - now how well would that work? Any woman subjected to that attitude would fail the man's "test" because she would refuse to open herself up to such a demand. Both partners undertake the equal risk of opening up and learning about each other, assuming that the other is just as genuinely interested as we are. God is no different. Since the Bible tells us that God IS love, I think the comparison valid.

God exists beyond our 4 dimensions - He is not subject to empirical proof any more than love is - they can only be experienced - and largely internally so.

---

Zep, that is exactly what I have believed and thought and never really formulated into a well thought process for the longest time. That was so well said that it needs to be copied and saved. I intend to copy that post and save it into my word files. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I've seen that, and believe me; it was shocking. And scienctificly unexplainable also.

---

I'd love to hear more details. I've investigated lots of allegedly miraculous medical cures and none of them have been very convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

What's wrong with Bible?

---

Depends which version you're reading!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Depends which version you're reading!

:D

---

Really good point.

I know so little about things, I now realize. I haven't learned anything about the Big Bang for years, so I am for sure behind the curve. And I was trying to read about Quantum Mechanics, but it is so incredibly complicated. Still it's fascinating to me, and I love to read about it. My first thought when you mentioned it before was about the many-worlds interpretation, which I read more about, but I realize it might simply be too far beyond me for me to really understand it at all.

But when I first read about the many-worlds interpretation it was really intruiging. The idea, as I undrstand it, is that every possibility exists in a hypothetical universe. So there are infinite hypothetical universes, but only one main real one. Or there is an idea that all exist, but simply not to us. It's very fascinating to me. And the other thing I get from quantum mechanics is that at the smallest level, things cannot be measured linearally, things cannot be understood by phsyics which describe larger objects.

I could be misundrstanding it, since it seems like an incredibly complex process, but this reminds me of the buddhist idea that at the core, there is no deep essence or reality. It means that all things exist, but they are not actually things. Every form's natural state is emptiness, so therefore form equals emptiness, and emptiness equals form. This means that all things are alike, and that no thing exists independently of other things. Buddhists had these ideas philosophically, but actually Buddhists spoke of things like the atom, and even Hindus do, both, in scriptures, as far as I know long before the West ever knew of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Zep, that is exactly what I have believed and thought and never really formulated into a well thought process for the longest time. That was so well said that it needs to be copied and saved. I intend to copy that post and save it into my word files. Thanks.

---

It is an honor to have you speak so highly of something that I was afraid was phrased so poorly because I was composing in a hurry. Thank you so much for your kind words - they mean much. I have tremendous respect for you as a poster and such praise is not lightly taken.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

For why I believe in God, I will simply say this, and it's the most important statement I'll ever make. I, as a limited, living entity, can recognize the existence of the infinite in my life. I can recognize that I am limited, and I exist between two poles, which I call the infinite, and nothingness. Now I know with everything in me that I am part of this infinite. I can turn towards it and become like it; yet even if I did not, I could not escape it, since it is my source. Thus, no one can or will ever die. Not that we will necessarily have memory of our past lives, so don't worry aobut perpetual torment. But in fact, everything dissolves into this infinite. It makes sense according to reason. There is reason, but reason exists in the same way. All things are forms, which have their Ideal and Perfection in the Infinite.

This is the only tenable philosophy. And it's a joyous one. For when you truly understand this, then you'll get any philosophy that people can write about. There's nothing higher than this, simply recognizing the infinite in one's life, and turning toward it to try to understand it. We experience deja vu and coincidence, but there's no such thing as either; they are merely indications or clues to a higher plan. But we can turn toward the infinite and discover it within ourselves, discover that we are eternal; and this is basically the basis of all metaphysics or mysticism

---

1) If a soul is stuck between two polar opposite, one containing infinite essence and the other containing nothingness won't some go up and others go down?
2) Your Philosophy of Oneness sometimes can seem a little vague. According to your philosophy, there are different realms. I can only recognize two -- the spirtual -- and then the material. When an individual says "I am one" as he would in meditation would he picture himself at entire unity with the spiritual realm? Or at entire unity with the spiritual and a material realm?

Each one of these realms give off different energies :idea: Its a deep philosophy and a very attractive one. Your general consistency in these forums makes it even more so. But sometimes it seems so elusive. Is there any good books you can recommend for beginners?:yawnb:

Actually, a while back a study was done to test the effects of praying on the sick, and the results showed that when someone was told they were being prayed for, their chances of recovery were worse. I know Dawkins mentions it in his book, though I haven't read his book from cover to cover, or much less chapter to chapter, but the citation of the experiment is still there.

The effects of prayers had only psychological results, resulting in a lesser rate of recovery, because of the patients fear of the seriousness of his illness. The phenomenon of praying for someone helping them recover is mere rhetoric - it doesn't help. If we pray for someone, and they recover, chances are they recover because of a scientific reason - their body accepted the treatment, or the surgeon cut out all the cancer with his knife, or some other convenience. Not because of religious reasons.

Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?

What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?

What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?

What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?

The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
Is a crippled person crippled in heaven? Is a person in pain his whole life in pain in heaven?

The theological oneness offers no real explanation. The oblivion I will end up in sounds more reasonable.

But I guess you can pray for an afterlife, though I guess one you cannot really understand. I'd rather sleep in on Sundays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'd love to hear more details. I've investigated lots of allegedly miraculous medical cures and none of them have been very convincing.

---

You'll get PM shortly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Depends which version you're reading!
:D

---

You're kidding me...again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

1) If a soul is stuck between two polar opposite, one containing infinite essence and the other containing nothingness won't some go up and others go down?
2) Your Philosophy of Oneness sometimes can seem a little vague. According to your philosophy, there are different realms. I can only recognize two -- the spirtual -- and then the material. When an individual says "I am one" as he would in meditation would he picture himself at entire unity with the spiritual realm? Or at entire unity with the spiritual and a material realm?

Each one of these realms give off different energies :idea: Its a deep philosophy and a very attractive one. Your general consistency in these forums makes it even more so. But sometimes it seems so elusive. Is there any good books you can recommend for beginners?:yawnb:

---

I wouldn't say the individual is ever at entire unity with the spiritual or material realm. The spiritual realm is all about God. From the top to the bottom it is full of God, revealed, known and praised by all. The material world is more covered. Some people believe in God but many questions are unanswered. Many people don't believe in God. But we have been here for so long. Every one of us has committed crimes, but also not one of us has not been a saint. The only way we can discontinue our existence here is to surrender wholly to God. God is the only one who can take us out of here. Once we go back to God, however we never fall down again into desires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

You'll get PM shortly.

---

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

You're kidding me...again.

---

I wish I were.

The differences between different editions of the bible is quite stark, even though lots of times the changes are subtle. Some churches still swear the KJV is the only correct version of the bible, while others seem to have made stuff up completely. I usually use the RCC version for accuracy as they've got by miles the largest biblical scholarship and have a much longer history than all the others (barring Orthodox), but even then there's disagreement from scholars and historians - and that's before you get to the Apocrypha...

Just a quick fact check-- There is a vast degree of scholarly certainty as to the text of the Bible in the original languages. The two critical editions (editions that check all manuscript evidence, examine any differences and evaluate which are more likely to be original) of the Greek New Testament are in virtual agreement on what the original text is. The scholarship of these two editions (one edited by Nestle`& Aland and United Bible Societies 4th Ed.) is without equal and have verified the text of the autographs with an accuracy unequaled with any other ancient writings. The standard critical edition of the Hebrew Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica Stuitgartensia (BHS) has a less impressive manuscript selection to choose from (many Hebrew manuscripts were burned by Romans, Christians and Muslims) yet also provides an incredible accurate manuscript. It's accuracy has been demostrated and strengthened with the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts.

So all translations start with the same things.

Yes, translation is in some part interpretation. Yes there are different schools of thought as to whether a translation should strive to preserve the verbage of the original at the expense of readabilty or go for flowing prose with more interpretation/sacrifice of accuracy. But (and I belong to as by-the-Book group as you could find) the majority of translations even with weaknesses say exactly the same thing 99% of the time. If you found someone without a dog in the fight you could have them determine the accuracy of a translation. We are not reduced to "does it say this or that?" ever because of uncertainty caused by a poor text or translation issues.

Now agreeing whether or not the original is true/God's Word is another matter, one that transcends scholarship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Just a quick fact check-- There is a vast degree of scholarly certainty as to the text of the Bible in the original languages.

---

I think treatment of the Apocrypha alone refutes that.

Even with a 95-99% commonality, there is still lots of room to move, and as far as scholarly agreement goes, I suggest you need to look at some secular work on the bible which tends to show that some parts have been mistranslated.

Huge subject, and not one which I'm an expert on, but I'm relying on the evidence presented by a historian member of the Royal Society and a couple of other bible scholars. If you want to pursue the idea that the differences are negligible, here's a good place to start.